Fundamentally Flawed Solution to Improving Teacher Quality

There has been a great deal of dialogue nationwide about increasing the quality of teachers in our schools. This year Governor Bryant and our legislature brought this much needed discussion home to the state of Mississippi. Bills pending in the legislature propose that students would have to score at least 21 on the ACT college admission test and earn at least a 3.0 GPA in college courses to be admitted into a teacher education program in Mississippi. This one statement tucked away in two bills, House Bill 890 and Senate Bill 2658, could have a profound effect on education in Mississippi, maybe even more so than the charter school debate which has received so much attention this year. Based on the ACT scores of education students currently enrolled in teacher education programs in our states? universities, these bills could possibly eliminate more than half of the current pool of potential teachers

According to the Associated Press Governor Bryant considers this legislation as a means to improve teacher quality. He was quoted as stating, ?The center of this, if we could look at one thing that will have a transformative effect, is getting a better teacher in the classroom.? I agree with the governor that quality teachers truly make a difference in the classroom, but I believe that the approach that we are taking as a state is fundamentally flawed. To those not intimately involved with the preparation of educators, our elected officials? logic and actions seem to make sense. If standards for teachers are increased, then better teachers are produced. The problem is that our government is not increasing standards for the preparation of teachers, it is increasing admission criteria. This is not the same thing. Increasing standards would focus on improving the education and training of future teachers as well as more thoroughly evaluating existing teachers to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to effectively educate young people. Increasing admission criteria does nothing to improve the performance of existing or future teachers. Increasing admissions criteria only excludes potential teachers from the field based upon their performance on an exam that was administered during their junior or senior year of high school that was not designed to assess or predict teacher quality or potential. The ACT is designed to predict college student performance, and its accuracy in doing that is even limited.

Furthermore, even if the ACT was designed to be a predictor of teacher performance the research cited does not make as strong a case for 21 being the acceptable score as we have been led to believe by Governor Bryant and his advisors in interviews. The Clarion Ledger recently reported that Bryant?s advisors point to an analysis by a Mississippi State University data center that indicates students statewide in grades 3-8 have better state test scores when taught by teachers who scored higher on the ACT. The example in the paper stated, ?While only 39 percent of students taught by teachers who scored from 12 to 15 scored at proficient levels in reading and writing, 60 percent of students taught by teachers who scored from 28 to 32 on the ACT were proficient.? I recently reviewed the study by Mississippi Life Tracks on which this example was based. The example cited by the governor?s advisor is skewed. A comparison was made between teachers with scores of 12 to 15 on the ACT with teachers with scores of 28 to 32 on the ACT. The proposed ACT score is not set at 15. It is set at 21. A much more effective comparison would have been to show the comparison of performance of those scoring in the 16 to 19 range with those scoring in the 20 to 23 range since this is the range where the majority of our potential teachers? ACT scores would be. This, however, would not have been nearly as dramatic. Examination of the same data charts referenced by the governor?s advisor on student proficiency in reading and writing and math, will indicate little difference between these two groups. Approximately 45% of students scored proficient in reading and writing when their teachers scored 16 to 19 on the ACT and 51% of students scored proficient in reading and writing when their teachers scored 20 to 23 on the ACT. The scores were even less dramatic in math. There was only a 2% difference in scores between the two groups. So, maybe you are thinking that we should just lower the cut score a little and that would ensure that we get the pool of teachers that we want without eliminating potentially good teachers based primarily on an ACT score. If you are, then consider this data from the report that the governors? advisor referenced. Approximately 52% of students in math who had teachers scoring between 12 and 15 on the ACT scored proficient, while 60% of students who had teachers scoring between 24 and 27 scored proficient in math. According to their logic if a student scores proficient, then the teacher is effective. Five out of ten teachers with the lowest category of ACT scores were effective in teaching math based on a data chart in this report, while six out of ten were effective in the next to highest category. Again, this means that we could potentially eliminate more than half of our teacher pool based on the premise that prospective teachers who score below 21 lack the capacity to develop into a good teacher regardless of their desire, calling, or training in a teacher education program, when there appears to be little guarantee that teachers scoring above 21 are going to be significantly more effective.

As a teacher educator, I know that content knowledge is an essential trait of a quality teacher. I also know that it is not the only trait and that a standardized test is not the only way to measure it. I have no problem with raising the standards for teachers, but I am fervently against blindly passing laws that could have major consequences without even addressing the real problem. To our elected officials, thank you for starting this much needed discussion on teacher quality. To our elected officials, fellow teacher educators, and advocates for education, shame on us all for letting these bills get out of committee before this discussion began!

*This letter to the editor was written by Tony Latiker, Ed.D., Assistant Professor of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at Jackson State University.

Tony LatikerBrandon, MSUser submission

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Fundamentally Flawed Solution to Improving Teacher Quality

There has been a great deal of dialogue nationwide about increasing the quality of teachers in our schools. This year Governor Bryant and our legislature brought this much needed discussion home to